🤔
Just some random thoughts. Views and opinions welcome:
We have seen/heard of reports of top filmmakers, writers, actors, musicians in their prime influencing monopoly, authority as a result fading many deserved artists and denying them opportunities. Make no mistake, the top artists are at the top for a reason and very good.
Who do we think is at fault here?
I hardly know RG or Madalasa personally.So can't speak about their personnal life.But when Madalasa spoke ill about RG in media,I felt it was quite unprofessional.
If Madalasa got bullied by RG she could have taken legal steps against her.After all she is MIdhun chakravarthy's daughter -in - law.But presently RG is getting bullied publicly by her co stars like Paras and Madalasa.
Lol what legal steps, do you know anything about law in india?
And again you are claiming everyone else is lying and wrong and only one person is saint
no one is obliged to
Not justifying rg or anyone but maybe she's just trying to add fuel to the fire moreover just becoz a person says hi doesn't mean we have to respond back and even if we choose to ignore that doesn't mean we should be called rude
People are allowed to ignore when they don't want to talk and they should not be judged for this
If many many many people from all walks of life has called someone egoistical and unprofessional, all of them cannot be lying. And no one will complain in public for something as small as not saying hi back, lol. It has to be much bigger things.
Originally posted by: Harish111
Lol what legal steps, do you know anything about law in india?
And again you are claiming everyone else is lying and wrong and only one person is saint
Yes,I do.There r laws for mental harassment at work place and it is applicable to every Indian citizen.
Without valid proofs these r just allegations.Also allegations by two or three co actors r not claims of everyone at " Anupama" set
.Looks like many for her co actors r jealous of Rg for her fame and as she earns more than them.
Originally posted by: Bodhianveshika
🤔
Just some random thoughts. Views and opinions welcome:
We have seen/heard of reports of top filmmakers, writers, actors, musicians in their prime influencing monopoly, authority as a result fading many deserved artists and denying them opportunities. Make no mistake, the top artists are at the top for a reason and very good.
Who do we think is at fault here?
Either everyone or no one
Now this is 0/100 kind of retort. Sorry to burst your bubble but RG's career is almost over. Already the show is contemplating to take a leap with freshers and it will be very difficult for her to get lead role in some other show. Even if she manages to bag one, what's the gurantee that "history will get repeated"? Her fame will gradually dissipate once she's gone. Has happened with many celebs who once ruled itv and your Rupali is not an exception. On the other hand, her coactors are young and equally popular. Moreover,they are not stereotyped and can fit into myriad characters.
Yes,I do.There r laws for mental harassment at work place and it is applicable to every Indian citizen.
Without valid proofs these r just allegations.Also allegations by two or three co actors r not claims of everyone at " Anupama" set
Throughout history, many of the top artists started out as amateurs. They were given opportunities—whether it was a single chance or a series of breaks—that allowed them to showcase their talent. Some shone brightly right from the start, while others needed time to refine their craft through repeated chances. Given this, one would expect that, having experienced similar struggles, these established figures might feel a sense of empathy for the upcoming generation of artists or those who lack connections. The same expectation applies to those who employ them, whether they are producers, casting directors, or industry gatekeepers. Why not provide similar opportunities to others, rather than succumbing to the influence of a select few?
But then the question arises: Why shouldn't the top artists monopolize the industry when they possess the talent, connections, and resources to do so? After all, they've worked incredibly hard to reach the pinnacle of their careers. Isn’t it natural for them to want to secure and solidify their position at the top? The same logic applies to those who hire them: Why would they take the risk of casting new or lesser-known talents when established names come with guaranteed recognition and success? There’s an old adage that says, “If a person is truly talented, they will find a way to break through.” But, in reality, we know how difficult and rare that truly is.
In certain creative industries, such as acting, the solution might lie in producing more limited-episode shows. This would benefit both the audience and the industry. Viewers would get more variety, experiencing a broader range of storytelling and performances. Actors, too, would have greater opportunities to showcase their range and versatility, rather than being typecast in long-running roles. Moreover, the increased demand for new content would open doors for emerging directors, producers, writers, and other creatives, breathing fresh life into the industry.
PS: Apologies for the long writeup
Originally posted by: strancho
Throughout history, many of the top artists started out as amateurs. They were given opportunities—whether it was a single chance or a series of breaks—that allowed them to showcase their talent. Some shone brightly right from the start, while others needed time to refine their craft through repeated chances. Given this, one would expect that, having experienced similar struggles, these established figures might feel a sense of empathy for the upcoming generation of artists or those who lack connections. The same expectation applies to those who employ them, whether they are producers, casting directors, or industry gatekeepers. Why not provide similar opportunities to others, rather than succumbing to the influence of a select few?
But then the question arises: Why shouldn't the top artists monopolize the industry when they possess the talent, connections, and resources to do so? After all, they've worked incredibly hard to reach the pinnacle of their careers. Isn’t it natural for them to want to secure and solidify their position at the top? The same logic applies to those who hire them: Why would they take the risk of casting new or lesser-known talents when established names come with guaranteed recognition and success? There’s an old adage that says, “If a person is truly talented, they will find a way to break through.” But, in reality, we know how difficult and rare that truly is.
In certain creative industries, such as acting, the solution might lie in producing more limited-episode shows. This would benefit both the audience and the industry. Viewers would get more variety, experiencing a broader range of storytelling and performances. Actors, too, would have greater opportunities to showcase their range and versatility, rather than being typecast in long-running roles. Moreover, the increased demand for new content would open doors for emerging directors, producers, writers, and other creatives, breathing fresh life into the industry.
PS: Apologies for the long writeup
Well balanced view.
The thing about content too is that treading on new topics comes with risks of acceptance and the production houses' own guidelines.
Pick up any channel, any show in a genre, it is the same re-cycling process of a tried-and-tested formula.
| topics | author | replies | views | reply |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radhiii | 3 | 1k | ||
| MOTHERHOOD | 11 | 1.4k | ||
| Historia | 6 | 975 | ||
| MOTHERHOOD | 8 | 954 | ||
| myviewprem | 68 | 4.1k |
comment:
p_commentcount